Prasad v Woolworths Limited [2017] NSWDC 79

Prasad v Woolworths Limited [2017] NSWDC 79

Woolworths breached its duty of care because its trading-hours system was limited to 'clean as you go', involved no scheduled or positive inspections and no obligation to look for hazards, and there was no evidence of the system's effectiveness or of precautions taken on the day. Given the foreseeable and not insignificant risk of a customer slipping on clear spilled liquid in a supermarket, a reasonable response required a system of inspections. The fall caused compensable physical and psychological injury, but the evidence supported damages limited to 32% of a most extreme case for non-economic loss, a small buffer for lost earning capacity, five years of domestic care around the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Negligence Personal Injury Claim for Damages Arising From a Slip and Fall in a Supermarket / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $293,000, with the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs.
Legal Topics
['slip and Fall' 'supermarket Occupier Liability' 'cleaning and Inspection Systems' 'breach of Duty' 'non Economic Loss' 'loss of Earning Capacity' 'domestic Assistance' 'future Medical Expenses']
['tort' 'negligence' 'personal Injury'] ['slip and Fall' 'supermarket Occupier Liability' 'cleaning and Inspection Systems' 'breach of Duty' 'non Economic Loss' 'loss of Earning Capacity' 'domestic Assistance' 'future Medical Expenses']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil Negligence Personal Injury Claim for Damages Arising From a Slip and Fall in a Supermarket / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Woolworths was negligent.' "What percentage of a most extreme case should be adopted in respect of Ms Prasad's injuries and disabilities in order to calculate her non-economic loss." 'What award, if any, should be made in respect of past and future loss of earning capacity.' 'What level of domestic care for Ms Prasad has been occasioned by the fall, and would it be likely that Ms Prasad would incur the expense of paid commercial care in the future.' 'Future medical expenses.']

Ratio Decidendi

Woolworths breached its duty of care because its trading-hours system was limited to 'clean as you go', involved no scheduled or positive inspections and no obligation to look for hazards, and there was no evidence of the system's effectiveness or of precautions taken on the day. Given the foreseeable and not insignificant risk of a customer slipping on clear spilled liquid in a supermarket, a reasonable response required a system of inspections. The fall caused compensable physical and psychological injury, but the evidence supported damages limited to 32% of a most extreme case for non-economic loss, a small buffer for lost earning capacity, five years of domestic care around the...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $293,000, with the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $293,000.' "Defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs."]